Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: About qsearch...

Author: Tom Kerrigan

Date: 23:09:49 12/27/01

Go up one level in this thread


On December 28, 2001 at 01:44:04, Uri Blass wrote:

>On December 27, 2001 at 20:39:31, Tom Kerrigan wrote:
>
>>On December 27, 2001 at 15:47:33, Uri Blass wrote:
>>
>>>There are practical cases when the qsearch include
>>>hundreds of nodes
>>
>>Hundreds of nodes are insignificant.
>>
>>Every node you search that doesn't end up in the PV is arguably wasted.
>>
>>It has been pointed out to you that if you do static evaluation of a dynamic
>>position, the results are absolutely worthless. I do not believe you've
>>responded to this argument. Do you disagree with it?
>>
>>-Tom
>
>The results are not absolutely worthless
>
>I can also use a special evaluation
>to reduce the demage and I agree that using evaluate that only count pieces in
>the board is not the right evaluation.
>I expect the side to move to earn something(I can assume that the side to move
>earn half of the material that it can capture and I think that I have better
>ideas that do not cost me a lot of time).
>
>Uri

Some earlier programs did not do qsearches (due to lack of processor power) but
they did do SEE of the pieces on the board during evaluation. Seems like this is
what you're interested in.

You failed to mention your idea of using a different eval function... could have
saved everybody some breath.

-Tom



This page took 0 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.